Multivariate Assessment for Bioequivalence Based on the Correlation of Random Effect.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bioequivalence tests are fundamental step in assessing the equivalence in bioavailability between a test and reference product. In practice, two separate linear mixed models (LMMs) with random subject effects, which have an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the peak concentration (Cmax) as the responses, have become the gold standard for evaluating bioequivalence. Recently, Lee et al developed a multivariate hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) for several responses that modeled correlations among multivariate responses via correlated random effects. The objective of this study was to apply this multivariate analysis to the bioequivalence test in practice and to compare the performance of multivariate HGLM and separate LMMs. METHODS: Three pharmacokinetic datasets, fixed-dose combination (naproxen and esomeprazole), tramadol and fimasartan data were analyzed. We compared the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of a test product to a reference product using the multivariate HGLM and two conventional separate LMMs. RESULTS: We found that the 90% CIs for the GMRs of both AUC and Cmax from the multivariate HGLM were narrower than those from the separate LMMs: (0.843, 1.152) vs (0.825, 1.177) for Cmax of esomeprazole in fixed-dose combination data; (0.805, 0.931) vs (0.797, 0.941) for Cmax in tramadol data; (0.801, 1.501) vs (0.762, 1.578) for Cmax and (1.163, 1.332) vs (1.009, 1.341) for AUC in fimasartan data, consistent with the random subject effects from two separate LMMs being highly correlated in the three datasets (correlation coefficient r = 0.883; r = 0.966; r = 0.832). CONCLUSION: This multivariate HGLM had good performance in the bioequivalence test with multiple endpoints. This method would provide a more reasonable option to reduce the 90% CI by adding correlation parameters and thus an advantage especially in evaluating the bioequivalence of highly variable drugs with broad 90% CIs.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Portugal.

Objectives: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods: We used a previously developed Markov model calibrated with patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF trial, adapted to the Portuguese setting. The model considers two health states (alive or dead) and uses regression analyzes to estimate hospitalizations and deaths over time. A panel of experts estimated resource consumption in the outpatient setting. To estimate resource consumption with hospitalizations, the National Health Service Diagnosis Related Groups database was used. Unit costs were based on national legislation, and on the Infomed database. The model considers a societal perspective, a time horizon of 30-years, and a 5% annual discount rate. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of results.Results: Sacubitril/valsartan increases life expectancy by 0.5 life-years, corresponding to 0.4 incremental quality adjusted life-years (QALY) versus enalapril. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 22,702€/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that results are robust, but sensitive to the parameter estimates of the cardiovascular survival curve.Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective therapeutic option in the treatment of Portuguese patients with HFrEF and translate into significant health gains and increased life expectancy versus the current standard of care.

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Germany: An Application of the Efficiency Frontier.

BACKGROUND: To assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in Germany, the efficiency frontier (EF) method has been developed. We compared the cost-effectiveness analysis using international standards and the German methodology, using the heart failure drug sacubitril/valsartan as an example. METHODS: A previously developed Markov model was adapted to include 4 treatment options: no treatment, enalapril, candesartan, and sacubitril/valsartan. The internationally used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Additionally, EFs, net monetary benefits (NMBs), and price-acceptability curves were created according to German guidelines. All analyses were performed from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. RESULTS: The base-case ICER for sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is €19 300/quality-adjusted life-year. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, sacubitril/valsartan is most likely to be cost-effective, out of all included comparators, from a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €18 250/quality-adjusted life-year onward. No EF could be constructed for the base case. Taking the uncertainty of the input parameters into account for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a NMB of around -€14 000 was calculated, depending on the outcome considered, with the NMB being zero at a daily price for sacubitril/valsartan ranging from €1.52 to €1.67. CONCLUSION: We calculated an ICER for Germany, comparable to previously published cost-effectiveness analyses for Europe, which widely concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be cost-effective. Using the German EF approach, a considerable discount needs to be applied before sacubitril/valsartan can be considered cost-effective.

Reduced loop diuretic use in patients taking sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post-randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P < 0.001), and 6.1% (P < 0.001) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, with similar findings in an on-treatment analysis. CONCLUSION: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more loop diuretic dose reductions and fewer dose increases compared with enalapril, suggesting that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the requirement for loop diuretics relative to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The cost implication of primary prevention in the HOPE 3 trial.

AIMS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.

The Sterilizing Effect of Intermittent Tedizolid for Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

Background: Linezolid exhibits remarkable sterilizing effect in tuberculosis; however, a large proportion of patients develop serious adverse events. The congener tedizolid could have a better side-effect profile, but its sterilizing effect potential is unknown. Methods: We performed a 42-day tedizolid exposure-effect and dose-fractionation study in the hollow fiber system model of tuberculosis for sterilizing effect, using human-like intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics. Bacterial burden was examined using time to positivity (TTP) and colony-forming units (CFUs). Exposure-effect was examined using the inhibitory sigmoid maximal kill model. The exposure mediating 80% of maximal kill (EC80) was defined as the target exposure, and the lowest dose to achieve EC80 was identified in 10000-patient Monte Carlo experiments. The dose was also examined for probability of attaining concentrations associated with mitochondrial enzyme inhibition. Results: At maximal effect, tedizolid monotherapy totally eliminated 7.1 log10 CFU/mL Mycobacterium tuberculosis over 42 days; however, TTP still demonstrated some growth. Once-weekly tedizolid regimens killed as effectively as daily regimens, with an EC80 free drug 0- to 24-hour area under the concentration-time curve-to-minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio of 200. An oral tedizolid of 200 mg/day achieved the EC80 in 92% of 10000 patients. The susceptibility breakpoint was an MIC of 0.5 mg/L. The 200 mg/day dose did not achieve concentrations associated with mitochondrial enzyme inhibition. Conclusions: Tedizolid exhibits dramatic sterilizing effect and should be examined for pulmonary tuberculosis. A tedizolid dose of 200 mg/day or 700 mg twice a week is recommended for testing in patients; the intermittent tedizolid dosing schedule could be much safer than daily linezolid.

Fixed-dose vs free-dose combinations for the management of hypertension-An analysis of 81 958 patients.

Fixed-dose combinations (FDC) have been developed to reduce the pill burden for hypertensive patients. Data on fixed-dose or free-dose (freeDC) ramipril/amlodipine (R/A) or candesartan/amlodipine (C/A) combination treatment initiation were assessed. 71 463 patients were prescribed R/A and 10 495 C/A. For both R/A and C/A, FDC patients were younger (both P < .001) and less comorbid. Prior MI (OR: 0.61 and 0.60), prior stroke (OR: 0.68 and 0.70) and CHD (OR: 0.68 and 0.64) were negatively associated with FDC use, whereas hyperlipidemia was positively associated (OR: 1.26 and 1.19). Use of antihypertensive comedication (OR: 0.78; OR: 0.55) and treatment discontinuation within 12 months (HR: 0.65 and 0.82) were less likely in FDC patients, who also showed superior adherence (mean MPR; both P < .001). Cost of the combination was higher for FDCs (both P < .001). FDCs improve persistence and adherence, although they are more commonly prescribed in patients with less cardiovascular disease.

PARADIGM-HF Trial: Secondary Analyses Address Unanswered Questions.

Our aim was to summarize published secondary analyses of the PARADIGM-HF trial. In the original trial, published in September 2014, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared to enalapril. This summary provides a resource for clinicians to review subsequent analyses of the landmark trial evaluating the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in various subgroups and providing information regarding optimal use of this new therapy in the broader heart failure population. A full list of publications of the existing PARDADIGM-HF post hoc analyses was obtained and summarized, grouped by focus (e.g., severity of illness, tolerability). Twenty-six publications and one abstract analyzing the PARADIGM-HF trial were reviewed, summarizing the most important results that compared the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril, including pertinent subgroup information from each analysis. Key publications evaluated the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan based on heart failure severity (i.e., ejection fraction or heart failure risk scores), impact on alternate outcomes, influence of additional therapies, tolerability in patients with comorbidities (i.e., diabetes), long-term benefits, and cost-effectiveness. In addition, nine ongoing phase III and phase IV clinical trials with sacubitril/valsartan were briefly summarized to address potential future uses in more extensive heart failure settings. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril for the primary endpoint in the PARADIGM-HF trial is maintained throughout numerous secondary analyses. Though the subgroups analyzed are based on participants from a single clinical trial, clinicians can more confidently incorporate this novel therapy into practice with expanded knowledge of these existing analyses as well as ongoing prospective trials.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF). However, decision-makers need to determine whether its benefits are worth the additional costs, given the low-cost generic status of traditional standard of care. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project clinical and economic outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril for 66-year-old patients with HF over 10 years. Key health states included New York Heart Association classes I-IV and deaths; patients in each state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death. Sacubitril/valsartan benefits were modeled by applying the hazard ratios (HRs) in PARADIGM-HF trial to baseline probabilities. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril Results: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ICER of SGD 74,592 (USD 55,198) per QALY gained. A major driver of cost-effectiveness was the cardiovascular mortality benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. The uncertainty of this treatment benefit in the Asian sub-group was tested in sensitivity analyses using a HR of 1 as an upper limit, where the ICERs ranged from SGD 41,019 (USD 30,354) to SGD 1,447,103 (USD 1,070,856) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective was below 1%, 12%, and 71% at SGD 20,000, SGD 50,000, and SGD 100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At the current daily price sacubitril/valsartan may not represent good value for limited healthcare dollars compared to enalapril in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in HF in the Singapore healthcare setting. This study highlights the cost-benefit trade-off that healthcare professionals and patients face when considering therapy.

Assessment of Drug-Drug Interaction Potential Between Atorvastatin and LCZ696, A Novel Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor, in Healthy Chinese Male Subjects.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan), a novel angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor has been recently approved for the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. As several HF patients are likely to use statins as co-medications, the potential for a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between atorvastatin and LCZ696 was evaluated. METHODS: This was an open-label, three-period, single-sequence study in 28 healthy Chinese male subjects wherein LCZ696 200 mg was administered twice daily for 5 days in period 1. Following a washout period, atorvastatin 80 mg was administered once daily for 4 days (period 2) and subsequently co-administered with LCZ696 200 mg for 5 days (period 3). Serial plasma samples were collected to determine pharmacokinetic parameters of LCZ696 analytes (sacubitril, LBQ657, and valsartan) and atorvastatin and its metabolites. RESULTS: Atorvastatin co-administration had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of LBQ657, while the AUCτ,ss and C max,ss of sacubitril increased by 30 and 19 %, respectively, and the corresponding values for valsartan decreased by 19 and 9 %, respectively. Co-administration with LCZ696 increased C max,ss of atorvastatin, o-hydroxyatorvastatin, and p-hydroxyatorvastatin by 74, 68, and 108 %, respectively, and the AUCτ,ss of corresponding analytes increased by 34, 22, and 26 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While atorvastatin had no significant impact on the pharmacokinetics of LCZ696 analytes upon co-administration, the C max of atorvastatin and its metabolites increased twofold, with a marginal increase in AUC (<1.3-fold). Multiple-dose administration of LCZ696 200 mg twice daily and atorvastatin 80 mg once daily either alone or in combination was generally safe and well tolerated in healthy subjects.

Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction assessment of LCZ696 (an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) with omeprazole, metformin or levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol in healthy subjects.

LCZ696 is a novel angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in development for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Here, we assessed the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction of LCZ696 (400 mg, single dose or once daily [q.d.]) when co-administered with omeprazole 40 mg q.d. (n = 28) or metformin 1000 mg q.d. (n = 27) or levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol 150/30 µg single dose (n = 24) in three separate open-label, single-sequence studies in healthy subjects. Pharmacokinetic parameters of LCZ696 analytes (sacubitril, LBQ657, and valsartan), metformin, and levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol were assessed. Omeprazole did not alter the AUCinf of sacubitril and pharmacokinetics of LBQ657; however, 7% decrease in the Cmax of sacubitril, and 11% and 13% decreases in AUCinf and Cmax of valsartan were observed. Co-administration of LCZ696 with metformin had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of LBQ657 and valsartan; however, AUCtau,ss and Cmax,ss of metformin were decreased by 23%. Co-administration of LCZ696 with levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of ethinyl estradiol and LBQ657 or AUCinf of levonorgestrel. The Cmax of levonorgestrel decreased by 15%, and AUCtau,ss and Cmax,ss of valsartan decreased by 14% and 16%, respectively. Co-administration of LCZ696 with omeprazole, metformin, or levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol was not associated with any clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug interactions.

Combined Angiotensin Receptor Antagonism and Neprilysin Inhibition.

Heart failure affects ≈5.7 million people in the United States alone. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, ß-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists have improved mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but mortality remains high. In July 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first of a new class of drugs for the treatment of heart failure: Valsartan/sacubitril (formerly known as LCZ696 and currently marketed by Novartis as Entresto) combines the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor prodrug sacubitril in a 1:1 ratio in a sodium supramolecular complex. Sacubitril is converted by esterases to LBQ657, which inhibits neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for the degradation of the natriuretic peptides and many other vasoactive peptides. Thus, this combined angiotensin receptor antagonist and neprilysin inhibitor addresses 2 of the pathophysiological mechanisms of heart failure: activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and decreased sensitivity to natriuretic peptides. In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, valsartan/sacubitril significantly reduced mortality and hospitalization for heart failure, as well as blood pressure, compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and an elevated circulating level of brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the role of valsartan/sacubitril in the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension. We review here the mechanisms of action of valsartan/sacubitril, the pharmacological properties of the drug, and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of heart failure and hypertension.

Severe intestinal malabsorption associated with olmesartan: a French nationwide observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Severe sprue-like enteropathy associated with olmesartan has been reported, but there has been no demonstration of an increased risk by epidemiological studies. AIM: To assess, in a nationwide patient cohort, the risk of hospitalisation for intestinal malabsorption associated with olmesartan compared with other angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and ACE inhibitors (ACEIs). DESIGN: From the French National Health Insurance claim database, all adult patients initiating ARB or ACEI between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2012 with no prior hospitalisation for intestinal malabsorption, no serology testing for coeliac disease and no prescription for a gluten-free diet product were included. Incidence of hospitalisation with a discharge diagnosis of intestinal malabsorption was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: 4 546 680 patients (9 010 303 person-years) were included, and 218 events observed. Compared with ACEI, the adjusted rate ratio of hospitalisation with a discharge diagnosis of intestinal malabsorption was 2.49 (95% CI 1.73 to 3.57, p<0.0001) in olmesartan users. This adjusted rate ratio was 0.76 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, p=0.43) for treatment duration shorter than 1 year, 3.66 (95% CI 1.84 to 7.29, p<0.001) between 1 and 2 years and 10.65 (95% CI 5.05 to 22.46, p<0.0001) beyond 2 years of exposure. Median length of hospital stay for intestinal malabsorption was longer in the olmesartan group than in the other groups (p=0.02). Compared with ACEI, the adjusted rate ratio of hospitalisation for coeliac disease was 4.39 (95% CI 2.77 to 6.96, p<0.0001) in olmesartan users and increased with treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan is associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation for intestinal malabsorption and coeliac disease.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Formulary Conversion From Inhaled Flolan to Inhaled Veletri for Refractory Hypoxemia in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Flolan (iFLO) and Veletri (iVEL) are 2 inhaled epoprostenol formulations. There is no published literature comparing these formulations in critically ill patients with refractory hypoxemia. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes in patients who received either iFLO or iVEL for hypoxic respiratory failure. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of adult, mechanically ventilated patients receiving iFLO or iVEL for improvement in oxygenation. The primary end point was the change in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1 hour of pulmonary vasodilator therapy. Secondary end points assessed were intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, duration of study therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, incidence of adverse events, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included (iFLO = 52; iVEL = 52). More iFLO patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome compared with the iVEL group (61.5 vs 34.6%; P = 0.01). There was no difference in the change in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1 hour of therapy (33.04 ± 36.9 vs 31.47 ± 19.92; P = 0.54) in the iFLO and iVEL groups, respectively. Patients who received iVEL had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (P < 0.001) and ICU LOS (P < 0.001) but not hospital LOS (P = 0.86) and duration of therapy (P = 0.36). No adverse events were attributed to pulmonary vasodilator therapy, and there was no difference in cost. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference between iFLO and iVEL when comparing the change in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, safety, and cost in hypoxic, critically ill patients. There were differences in secondary outcomes, likely a result of differences in underlying indication for inhaled epoprostenol.

Blood pressure control and satisfaction of hypertensive patients following a switch to combined drugs of an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in clinical practice of nephrology.

BACKGROUND: Combination drugs containing an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker have been widely commercialized in recent years, and their advantages, such as improvements in adherence, and reductions in medication costs, have been greatly emphasized. However, the actual situations and the impact of switching to combination drugs in clinical practice of nephrology are not fully understood. METHODS: This study was conducted in outpatients of nephrology who received antihypertensive medicines, and who switched to combination drugs. Changes in the potency of the antihypertensive drugs, and blood pressure were examined retrospectively before and after changing treatments. In addition, the study also involved patients' questionnaire, which examined changes in blood pressure at home, the presence or absence of missed doses, the impact on medication-related expenses, and the level of patients' satisfaction with regard to combination drugs. RESULTS: Survey results from 90 participants revealed that changing to combination drugs resulted in a reduction of missed doses, a decrease in blood pressure measured in an outpatient setting, and a reduction in medication-related expenses in total patients, non-chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, and CKD patients. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that switching to combination antihypertensive drugs resulted in an improvement in adherence and a reduction in medication-related expenses, and revealed that patient satisfaction was high. Combination drugs for hypertensive patients may be beneficial in both medical and economical viewpoints.

What's new in the treatment of serious MRSA infection?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Vancomycin has been the cornerstone of treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. This review describes new MRSA-active antibiotics that have recently been introduced and highlights emerging resistance. RECENT FINDINGS: Elevations in the vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration within the susceptible range are associated with treatment failure and mortality in the treatment of MRSA infections. Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole are anti-MRSA cephalosporins and are noninferior to comparator agents in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) and pneumonia. Tedizolid is more potent than linezolid, has improved pharmacokinetics and reduced toxicity and is active against cfr-containing S. aureus. Telavancin now has approval for treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia, and recent phase 2 trial data showed similar cure rates in S. aureus bacteremia. Dalbavancin and oritavancin are administered once weekly and are noninferior to comparators for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Resistance has emerged against many new anti-MRSA antimicrobials including ceftaroline. Combination therapy of ß-lactams with vancomycin or daptomycin is increasing. SUMMARY: Several new MRSA-active agents are now approved for use, although much of the data is derived from treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections or pneumonia. Further studies are required for more invasive infections, such as bacteremia and endocarditis.